Download Role play

Role play
A globally warming debate… heating up!
Team 2 : « the Kyoto Skeptics »
 Professor Chris Collier, Royal Meteorological
Society (scientist and former president)
 U.S . focus group “cooler heads”: dispelling the
myths of global warming
 White House press secretary Dana Perino
+ any surprise guest is welcome…
Read the following articles, andofficial statement to prepare your arguments… :
Scientists speak out against Global Warming Fear Tactics:
Scientists blame Hollywood for increased fears over global warming - March 2007 (the
liberty lounge)
Chris Collier :
“catastrophism and the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate only work to create confusion in
the public mind. (…) convincing evidence to back the claims has not yet emerged.”
Leading climate change experts have thrown their weight behind two scientists who hit out at the
"Hollywoodisation" of global warming. Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal
Meteorological Society figures, criticised fellow scientists they accuse of "overplaying" the
message.
The pair spoke at a conference in Oxford today entitled Making Sense of Weather and Climate
and organised by Sense about Science, a scientific trust set up to help dispel the myths
surrounding polemic issues such as climate change.
They sparked controversy after saying statements made by the highly respected American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) were not justified. The AAAS said last month:
"As expected, intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is
occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies. Professor Collier said that
while he is not sceptical that such events could happen, it is important to be "honest" about the
scientific evidence behind projected future impacts. He said that while there is "no doubt" that
climate change is happening and is to an extent man-made, it is not yet proven by isolated climatic
events such as the Boscastle floods.
"There is always a danger of crying wolf. We have to be careful as scientists that we present the
facts and don't exaggerate things because it can undermine credibility in the long term."
"We have to help them understand it and allow them to make choices - because the impact of
climate change is going to mean we have got some quite difficult choices to make both in policy
and as members of the public. He said the scientists should avoid being forced to make wild
predictions about the future in response to climate change sceptics such as those seen in Channel
4's recent programme, Global Climate Swindle. He said: "We must be careful not to sensationalise
our side of the argument or Hollywoodise the argument otherwise you end up in an ever increasing
cycle of claim and counter-claim. "We have to be clear about what our level of understanding is
and to be clear about where we are making judgements based on understanding."
Their comments were backed today by other leading figures in the debate. Tracey Brown is the
director of Sense About Science, which has also produced a booklet bringing together key
scientists to help explain in layman's terms the main issues in the debate. She said she
"sympathised" with the professors' comments, saying uncertainty can often be "manipulated" to
generate outlandish ideas about the issue. "It's very important for scientists to be clear with the
public - we have learned that lesson with many scientific issues," she said. But she added that it
was important not to downplay the potentially "catastrophic" results of climate change.
White House press secretary Dana Perino expressed “serious concerns” about aspects of the
Bali plan*, saying “climate change cannot be adequately addressed through commitments for
emissions cuts by developed countries alone. Major developing economies must likewise act.” She
added, “[N]egotiations must clearly differentiate among developing countries in terms of the size of
their economies.” Parties must “negotiate commitments consistent with their national
circumstances.”
*UN Climate Change Conference, December 2007, Bali.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
December 15, 2007
STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
“The United States extends its gratitude and congratulations to the President of Indonesia for
hosting the Thirteenth Conference of the Parties in Bali and for his able leadership of this important
process.
The United States joins the consensus Decision of the Conference of the Parties in Bali that is a
critical first step in assuring that the UN negotiation process moves forward toward a
comprehensive and effective post-2012 arrangement.
There are many features of the Decision that are quite positive, including those provisions
recognizing the importance of developing clean technologies, financing the deployment of those
technologies in the developing world, assisting countries in adapting to climate change, exploring
industry sector agreements on emissions, and addressing deforestation.
The United States does have serious concerns about other aspects of the Decision as we begin
the negotiations. Notably, the United States believes that, in three important ways, we have not yet
fully given effect to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities that is a pillar of the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
First, the negotiations must proceed on the view that the problem of climate change cannot be
adequately addressed through commitments for emissions cuts by developed countries alone.
Major developing economies must likewise act. Just as the work of the IPCC has deepened our
scientific understanding of the scope of the problem and action required, so too empirical studies
on emission trends in the major developing economies now conclusively establish that emissions
reductions principally by the developed world will be insufficient to confront the global problem
effectively.
Second, negotiations must clearly differentiate among developing countries in terms of the size of
their economies, their level of emissions and level of energy utilization, and sufficiently link the
character or extent of responsibility to such factors. We must give sufficient emphasis to the
important and appropriate role that the larger emitting developing countries should play in a global
effort to address climate change.
Third, the negotiations must adequately distinguish among developing countries by recognizing
that the responsibilities of the smaller or least developed countries are different from the larger,
more advanced developing countries. In our view, such smaller and less developed countries are
entitled to receive more differentiated treatment so as to more truly reflect their special needs and
circumstances.
Accordingly, for these negotiations to succeed, it is essential that the major developed and
developing countries be prepared to negotiate commitments, consistent with their national
circumstances, that will make a due contribution to the reduction of global emissions. A post-2012
arrangement will be effective only if it reflects such contributions. At the same time, the United
States believes that any arrangement must also take into account the legitimate right of the major
developing economies and indeed all countries to grow their economies, develop on a sustainable
basis, and have access to secure energy sources.
We have seen what can be accomplished when we come together to work for a common cause.
Only by doing the necessary work this year will it be possible to reach a global consensus under
the Convention in 2009. The United States looks forward to participating in the negotiations
envisioned in the Bali Roadmap, in the Major Economies Process, in the G8 and in other
appropriate channels in order to achieve a global and effective post-2012 arrangement.”
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State.)
From : the “cooler heads”: www.globalwarming.org/ frequently asked
questions
Isn’t there a scientific consensus that global warming is real and bad for us?
 There is no "scientific consensus" that global warming will cause damaging climate
change. Claims that there is such a consensus mischaracterize the scientific research of
bodies like the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the
U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
What do scientists agree on?
 Scientists do agree that: 1) global average temperature is about 0.6°Celsius—or just over
1° Fahrenheit—higher than it was a century ago; 2) atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide
(CO2 ) have risen by about 30 percent over the past 200 years; and 3) carbon dioxide, like
water vapor, is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the Earth’s atmosphere.
Doesn’t this mean we should be worried?
 As Richard Lindzen of MIT summarized it in The Wall Street Journal, "These claims are
true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for
alarm nor establish man’s responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred.
In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating
skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn’t just that the alarmists are
trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting
catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies
to try to prevent global warming."
What don’t scientists know yet?
 Scientists do not agree on whether: 1) we know enough to ascribe past temperature
changes to carbon dioxide levels; 2) we have enough data to confidently predict future
temperature levels; and 3) at what level temperature change might be more damaging than
beneficial to life on Earth.
Didn’t the National Academy of Sciences say greenhouse gases cause global warming?
 The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because of the large and still
uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in
the time histories of the various forcing agents…a causal linkage between the buildup of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th
century cannot be unequivocally established." It also noted that 20 years’ worth of data is
not long enough to estimate long-term trends.
Hasn’t the Earth warmed precipitously over the past 100 years?
 The temperature rise of 0.6°C over the last century is at the bottom end of what climate
models suggest should have happened. This suggests that either the climate is less
sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought or that some unknown factor is
depressing the temperature.
Don’t climate models warn of alarming future warming?
 Predictions of 6°C temperature rises over the next 100 years are at the extreme end of the
IPCC range, and are the result of faulty economic modeling, not science (see economics
section below).
What are the realistic current estimates of future warming?
 Both James Hansen of NASA—the father of greenhouse theory—and Richard Lindzen of
MIT—the most renowned climatologist in the world—agree that, even if nothing is done to
restrict greenhouse gases, the world will only see a global temperature increase of about
1°C in the next 50-100 years. Hansen and his colleagues "predict additional warming in the
next 50 years of 0.5 ± 0.2°C, a warming rate of 0.1 ± 0.04°C per decade."
Do other man-made factors besides greenhouse gases influence temperature?
 New research suggests that the role of greenhouse gases in warming has been
overestimated, as factors like atmospheric soot, land use change, and solar variation9 all
appear to have contributed significantly to recent warming.